turboplanner

I wonder how Autonomous Emergency Braking systems would handle a runaway engine.

I can nearly guarantee you they haven't even thought about that, along with a million or so other scenarios; the stories are beginning to surface around the industry of just what a monumental task it would be to supplant the human brain. Reminds me a bit of Ford and GM's gas turbine Prime Movers; the jet age had arrived!

 

 

Around 80 percent of drivers rate themselves above average. Wonder if pilots are the same.

Sociology can be a fascinating subject to study at times; we often overrate ourselves, we often buy the opposite of what we preach etc.

Being above average doesn't help you much when a catastrophic mechanical failure occurs, or when the accident is caused by negligence of a third party.

 

I have a friend who has been hit and rolled over in a marked police car in Melbourne's CBD - twice! On both occasions the approach and hit were behind the eyesight arc, so there was no warning before the hit.

 

In the 1980's, when we were tightening up safety in speedway in Victoria, four highly skilled speedway drivers were killed in accidents on the road, where their considerable skills, at legal speeds, were not able to make a difference. That sort of thing makes you ask some interesting questions about your own methods of staying safe of the roads.

 

 

We can throw this little problem on to the steepening mountain that the designers of autonomous cars and trucks have to address if the manufacturers are not to have egg all over their faces.

 

 

Or maybe you could just knock it into neutral?

I've got some sympathy for these people; engine runaway is one of those things that you don't normally build into your subconscious, and considerable time can elapse before your mind gets into gear with a solution.

Growing up on a farm, I've been involved in some very entertaining moments.

 

Stationary engines led the pack, and the switches often failed, or the earth blade to the top of the spark plug broke and no one replaced it. A bag of wheat might be caught at the top of the elevator, or someone's coat might be caught in a chain, and they were starting to depart the scene up the chain. You'd have to move fast and you'd run for a screwdrivers, or any piece of metal.

 

Often things would go wrong and you'd become the short, and you were expected to hang on until the engine stopped.

 

In some cases you could throw a lump of 4x2 or a tree root into the chain or belt, particularly if you were operating a swing saw or belt saw.

 

I've seen a bucket of water used on the spark plugs to slow the engine down enough to make it stall.

 

In the fuel industry, if there's a spill, or other reason for heavy fumes, a diesel powered tanker can suck in the fumes and get into a runaway situation where cutting off its fuel has no effect because it's sniffing huge volumes of petrol fumes, hence the runaway. The likely result is a rod through the side, a lot of over-heat and a possible fire. So we fit engine stranglers to all tanker prime movers. You can hit a button in the truck, or outside it, and that triggers a powder fire extinguisher to remove the oxygen. The engine needs a complete pull down and re-assembly to get the power out. Fortunately a runaway is almost non-existent now due to better conditions around refineries.

 

 

Obviously an expert policeman on the ground there:“It looks at this stage as though the pilot had been attempting an emergency landing,” Sgt Hellier said.

 

“We might know more when the Melbourne investigators arrive and recover the glider’s black box”."

Do all gliders have a Flight recorder? and if so, any idea of the specification, price?

 

 

Are the responders holding up blankets to stop aerial photos of the pilot? If so, how sad that they need to do this and that there isn't a tad more respect and restraint out there.

That now seems to be standard practice in Victoria now, with the SES usually erecting shelter for the responders and privacy curtains.

Each layer doing their own task, and it looks professional.

 

TV and press media photos are always pixellated, and generally show just the general scene.

 

I suspect there is a code of practice in place.

 

 

Another report

 

Experienced pilot dies in glider crash at Benalla

 

 

No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

Glider crashed at Murray Rd, Benalla, pilot died at scene.

 

A Victoria Police Sergeant said it looks as though the pilot had been attempting an emergency landing.

 

 

So you're both deluded enough to think RAAus management would respond to input from a lone member?

No

 

 

It does look as if something popped out, doesn't it.

 

 

Your superior GA operational knowledge is obviously limited to technical matters and not business sustainability.

Quite possibly, but you've painted the picture for us.

 

 

Beginning to look like this is a push by failing GA operators to prop up their income with cheaper RA aircraft, finding that is a blind alley within CTA then trying to get the rules changed.

 

The problem is thousands of innocent RA flyers would be affected.

 

 

At no point was I suggesting access to controlled airspace for incompetent pilots.

I understand where you are coming from, but that is exactly what you are suggesting.

 

There is simply no justification for the blanket airspace restrictions imposed upon RAAus pilots, access should be competency based.

Yes it should but RAA still has not set up a compliance and enforcement operation to cover its fields of operation (unlike many other sporting operations who provide an army of volunteers).

In the absence of that, and the clear evidence I outlined above that some or many RAA pilots don't know what they don't know, the restrictions must be based on the lowest common denominator.

 

The present system allows RAAus pilots under training to operate from controlled aerodromes, the minute they obtain a pilot certificate they're banned.

I'm aware some RA training has crept into CTA, mainly from Foxbats pulling loops and screwing up at the entry points, but it's the trainers that create this situation. I could justify from my trining and experience that I could operate safely at up to double the road speed limits, but I'm not permitted to do so outside a race track

 

As a grade 1 GA instructor, former ATO and RAAus CFI I find the system to be inconsistent and discriminatory. I can train a pilot to the same standard in either RAA or GA, one is permitted to operate in CTA/CTR and the other is not.

I don't question your competency, and that you can train to the same level, but that pilot will be head and shoulders above people whose understanding starts with "What's the weather like there mate", or decide on a runway based on the last time they visited the field. For duty of care CASA has to cover the lowest common denominator.

You could also do that training outside CTA to the same standards of excellence, and have no issue to gripe about.

 

The RAAus pilot can do a medical, some paperwork and a GA Flight review to convert their RPC to an RPL, they too can then access CTA/CTR in their RAAus registered aircraft. The only difference being a couple of pieces of paper costing upwards of $5K - zero difference in competency or safety.

There may be zero difference if the competency included training on the subjects I mentioned earlier.

 

Meanwhile, at Camden (Class D) you've got glider pilots flying over populous areas, on a self certified medical, with only a certificate issued by Gliding Australia. These pilots are trained by instructors not requiring any powered aeroplane experience or comprehensive airspace training as required by GA. The same glider pilots can complete a self launching glider qualification and operate in all controlled airspace and aerodromes. I'm in no way suggesting the glider pilots to be incompetent, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency in regulations. The regs as applied to glider pilots would seem to be the standard, I don't see a whole lot of incident reports in the ATSB weekly summaries for airspace issues.

That's nowhere near enough information to decide what the standard of gliding training is in those areas, or the type of operations permitted.

 

The limitations on RAAus ops would most likely stem from the days of the single seat "flying clothesline" style aircraft and the associated self training system.

That's quite possible; many of those still exist, and regularly post on here, which was the basis of my comments.

 

 

Which particular piece of BS are you referring to?

The part where unqualified pilots, people who have publicly admitted overtly, or by their public actions that they don't understand P&O, Met, Nav and Radio should not only be entitled to enter CTA, but that CASA, who seems to be well aware of what it's dealing with, could even be DISCRIMINATING against them.

 

 

Turbs, in that sad case of the kid being injured by the lump of clay, I reckon the father should have removed himself and his kids when the clay started flying. The first skidding corner would have made the risk obvious.

In defence of the father, while a lot of dirt, dust and gravel can be kicked up early in the night, and is quite predictable, when the clay is soft and the wheels sink down into it, providing faster cornering, quite big slices can be flicked high into the air. I saw stars one night when a piece hit me on the jaw, and worse, was sitting on a deck chair in Mount Gambier one night and got hit in the balls, which caused some hopping for a while.

 

 

It's was stated at the QandA session following the AGM 23/9. You can watch the recording online via Facebook on their FB page.I don't know why RAAus don't simply insist on the same privileges as the Gliding federation and Ballooning Assn - they have access without a CASA licence or medical And minimal training. I understand that CASA are in breach of the Civil Aviation Act by discriminating against RAAus without any safety justification.

The BS just goes around and around!

 

 

I should be suing our state govt for not keeping the kangaroos off our roads....who's in? Could be a dollar in it.

I'd suggest you study Shire of Berrigan v Ballerini rather than stumbling blindly down that path.

 

 

The case I was referring to was a tandem-glider jump. The plaintiff, who had signed a blood sheet, was injured and sued anyway. He won the first round.Then the GFA, the parachute lot and I think RAAus contributed some big money to a high court appeal, which we won.

The parachutist had not been negligent , he had just done a poor landing, at least this was my impression.

 

If the flying groups had not won, it would have marked the end of glider rides for the public.

 

I really hate how fear of litigation makes us behave like we are insane. Just a few days ago, my grandkids wanted to bring a friend to the farm and my first thought was.... "what if he had a ride on the kid's dirt bikes and became a paraplegic and sued for millions?" . I should have just decided to make sure he had his mum's permission and plan to supervise them carefully.

That's much the same as the aircraft crash I was referring to; the key piece of information was that the parachutist WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT.

So the blood sheet played no part in the matter; the plaintiff could have signed the Magna Carta, but was never going to win.

 

So don't rely on that blood sheet; if the parachutist had failed in his duty of care all that signature guaranteed was that the penalty may have been a little less vicious.

 

I've previously given the example of some cases we were involved in.

 

Case (a) A child in her father's arms was hit by a piece of clay and severely injured. The club advertising and Programme didn't have and warning, after all EVERYONE knows speedway is dangerous. The Plaintiff pointed to the Programme which advertised a "family event" and said he expected a safe night. We paid out.

 

Case (b) Fresh from having all 105 tracks around the country post safety signs at the entrance, in the spectator areas, and in the Programmes, we received an invitation to pay out $2 million due to a catch fence with a cable joint which was not to the Australian Standard (so we were negligent). We argued that we had given ample warning that motor racing was dangerous, but lost out on the grounds that we had failed to advise the public that they could sue if we were negligent. The signs and Programmes were changed to read something like "Motor Racing is dangerous, however you have the right to sue if the promoter is negligent." I checked at a speedway last year and the wording at that speedway was still pretty much the same.

 

These are not hard and fast rules; every single case has its own unique features.

 

 

I reckon people should at least be able to agree not to sue. For example, a woman could then have her baby in her home rural town if she wanted to.

This is a favourite wish of some, but isn't going to happen.

 

With glider rides, we make the passengers sign a "blood sheet" agreeing not to sue and so far in Australia this has stood up to a court case.

You're making the person aware of an increased level of risk, and it may mitigate your case, but isn't really going to help you if your are found to be negligent.

Which was the gliding case you are referring to? There was one quoted here a while back, but when I checked it out, the pilot won the case because he was not negligent rather than had a sign up.

 

There should be more of it say I and a sign should be enough instead of a signed sheet of paper.

Once you've been in a case where someone has done something, but in Court denies it, and you were the only witness, you'll realise the futility of that.

How do you know they saw the sign?

 

Was the sign hidden by clothing etc

 

At least if they sign, that's an indication that they know of an increased risk level and agree to some risk.

 

 

If I was doing a reno by myself and someone broke in to my house and electrocuted themselves, common sense says that my liability should end at the point where I locked the front door.

The reason I put these cases up is to help people understand how the law works.

As far as people being held responsible for their actions, that's contributory negligence, and may well play a part in a case.

 

However you have a duty of care to protect someone from a reasonably forseeable risk.

 

240 volt bare wires in the reno are a reasonably forseeable risk' you're probably also breaking some workplace laws if someone including yourself could brush against them.

 

Or it could be the ambulance guys who come in to treat you, or a child playing games at night, or a plumber, who has come back in his own time to check some measurements, or a thief.

 

Who it is, is secondary to what caused the injury, and there are a few cases where thieves have been injured and awarded big sums of money.

 

 

Kangaroos on the runway a problem; this one will be of interest to you Richard.

 

Five Star Medical Centre Pty Limited v Kempsey Shire Council - NSW Caselaw

 

 

......and your reason is?

 

 

It's more than just planes. It's a celebration of flight!19-21 October 2017

 

RAAus are pleased to bring you AirVenture Australia (AVA) 2017. Building on the success of 2016, this year’s event is certainly designed to offer something for everyone. An assortment of seminars for young, old, experienced and novice aviators. A comprehensive aviation exhibition space where if you can think of it, you’ll find it. Top all this off with an airshow that will blow your sock off and you will start to see why AVA 2017 can’t be missed. Tickets now on sale

 

AirVenture Australia

Only one sock?

 

 

It's interesting that close witness reports state that they only heard a "thump" on impact - there's no mention of engine noise, or an engine exhaust pitch change.It's difficult to see if the prop shows signs of rotation under power at impact - but I think I can see one blade partly-buried, level with the turf, that would appear to indicate it wasn't under power at impact.

Until the crash report comes out, one can only surmise that they were practising some type of emergency, and had engine failure at a critical moment, leading to an inability to recover, resulting in a flat spin.

 

What is puzzling is that they would appear to be initially at a relatively low height, to be unable to recover from the spin.

 

By all reports, the DA-40 is reliable enough, but to have two crash in a fortnight, and both in training situations, with instructors aboard, is of great concern.

When you get down lower than you should be, and have an oops moment, it doesn't take long at all to bite:

 

 

 

I'd check out the past history; you're making virtually no noise when descending, it's usually the full throttle take offs which affect the town.